I believe these are important problems that require MAL's collective intellect to solve. So how do you folks answer these scenarios?     |
FreshellJan 18, 2020 10:01 AM
| God I hate those with a passion lol. Just let everyone f*cking die and stay away from train tracks. Unless a villain appears and ties you to one as he's performing that chuckle of evil. But worry not young one for heroes are on their way. |
  “The most shameless thing in the world is political power that can be inherited regardless of ability or talent!” |
| The nerd in the first one would definitely be the one Michael would be thrilled to kill. |
 |
| too complicated so fuck it and i will do nothing even though they say inaction is worse than doing a mistake |
operationvalkyri said: Don't pull Don't pull Don't pull Don't pull Long jump because they look cooler than high jumps. There. Solved it. tfw you're such a Batman-esque deontologist that you wouldn't even pull the lever to maximize the odds of saving yourself. I respec that. |
| I'm confused, which option results in more people dying? Because that's my choice. |
 |
| Back-seat ethics that derives superficial profundity and results. I love it. I would have answered this seriously if it were true problems. Trolley problems are cliche "problems" (they're not, because there's no answer to them). They utilize pretty much zero value in practical and even theoretical sense. The problem's existence only stems from the fact that different people assess situations differently. That's really it. The trolley problem is a mirage. Ideally, I would have the best ideology (transcendental OP faggotism) to solve this problem; someone please delete these "problems" from Earth. |
| 1. Pull the level - An integer is countable whereas real numbers may not be. Therefore the infinity set for integers is smaller than the infinity set for real numbers. 2. I don't understand what pulling the lever does 3. I like this question - it asks if something is defined by what it's made of or by its purpose and action. I agree with the latter. I would say the components of the trolley did not kill the man; it was your decision to pull the trolley and start its motion. 4. No, by definition utilitarianism is the theory that something should be done to promote the most benefit to the majority. One man's happiness does not outweigh >= 1 person's suffering. I don't get the dilemma here. 5. Go over 5 people for style points |
 |
iluvtofu said: 4. No, by definition utilitarianism is the theory that something should be done to promote the most benefit to the majority. One man's happiness does not outweigh >= 1 person's suffering. I don't get the dilemma here. Depends on the form of utilitarianism. Bentham would have counted all happiness equally, regardless of degree. Mill introduced the notion of higher and lower pleasures, introducing degree into the equation. The fourth one is a play on Robert Nozick's notion of a "utility monster," which is a sadist who experiences so much pleasure that it outweighs the suffering he causes. He really didn't like utilitarianism, as an anti-government minarchist guy. Anyway, speaking of Robert Nozick, let's throw in a libertarian trolley problem.  |
| Which trolley tracks include flat earthers and justin bieber? How do people even end up on trolley tracks? Does some shady man offers them candy? |
| Let me be an outlier an attempt to answer the humorous questions honestly. I just feel like doing it. How can our planet habitable with that many people anyway? Either is fine, both infinities are incomprehendable concepts when it comes to the quantity of actual, tangible things like humans. On the second one, hmm I don't think that's quite what Adam Smith meant lol. I guess I'll go with mathematics, assuming I have an equal likelihood of being any of the people present 5/8 is bigger than 1/8, sorry that single guy... Ignoring the classic question I'd pick the long one, since maybe someone saves the person or the train runs out of fuel. Here I think I'll utilise something akin to David Benatar's asymmetry of pain and pleasure (even though I'm not sure if I find it very compelling) which posits there's an asymmetry in the states of well-being in the sense that while absence of pain is necessarily a good thing even if there's no one to enjoy this good, same cannot be said for the absence of pleasure. I've only seen him employ that line of logic for his case of anti-natalism, and he didn't seem to extend this over that which is the creation of life, but perhaps one could make a general case for it. An example he uses to elucidate his point is the following: It is morally right to not bring into existence a child whose life will be miserable (causing absence of pain is the right to do); however, it is not morally wrong to not bring into existence a child whose life will be filled with joy (causing absence of pleasure is not a wrong thing to do). Of course he uses this for potential life, not actual life. But if you stick to examples I think the intuition stays the same (Oh fuck, @Freshell senpai I inadvertently used intuition lmao). So yes no lever. Since his perception of pain and pleasure are so amplified let's buy him an ice cream and he'll jump around like he just won the lottery or something :D Let's be honest jumping over 5 pals would look way cooler. There's no room for argument on that one, |
Auron_Jan 18, 2020 12:09 PM
 |
| Whatever results in the most people dying is the most utilitarian solution, as most people either suck or are miserable or both anyway, and are a danger to themselves, the planet, as well as others. I would still pull the lever on the second one to increase my chances of survival, as self preservation is my inescapable priority. |
 I can see you |
Freshell said: I take issue with this characterization of batmantfw you're such a Batman-esque deontologist that you wouldn't even pull the lever to maximize the odds of saving yourself. I respec that. |
| @Orhunaa Guess I'm going to have to look into David Benatar's stuff because that's precisely the kind of argument for anti-natalism that makes 0 sense to me. Michael doesn't like ice cream. Micheal likes to kill. All work and no play makes Michael a dull boy. Do you really want to make Michael miserable? @hugmynd Do feel free to elaborate. I just watched a few of the movies. I'm not a comic dork. |
hugmynd said: @freshell even speaking of the dark knight trilogy alone, he leaves ra's on the train instead of helping him Eh... but that was kind of him hacking his own deontological moral imperative to not kill. He technically didn't kill him. He didn't save him. I know it's a little mental gymnastic, but it's clear that's what was going on in his head. |
Freshell said: contradicting his decision at the end of dark knight, yeahhugmynd said: @freshell even speaking of the dark knight trilogy alone, he leaves ra's on the train instead of helping him Eh... but that was kind of him hacking his own deontological moral imperative to not kill. He technically didn't kill him. He didn't save him. I know it's a little mental gymnastic, but it's clear that's what was going on in his head. and omitting his mass killings in rises |
hugmynd said: Freshell said: contradicting his decision at the end of dark knight, yeahEh... but that was kind of him hacking his own deontological moral imperative to not kill. He technically didn't kill him. He didn't save him. I know it's a little mental gymnastic, but it's clear that's what was going on in his head. and omitting his mass killings in rises Sadly my superhero movie viewings are so sparse that I can't even defend the totality of his actions in that trilogy. I'll trust your judgement on the matter of him being inconsistent. ;P Do forgive my lazy reference. |
| I pull the lever because the sensation of pulling a lever is satisfying. |
 |
Freshell said: iluvtofu said: 4. No, by definition utilitarianism is the theory that something should be done to promote the most benefit to the majority. One man's happiness does not outweigh >= 1 person's suffering. I don't get the dilemma here. Depends on the form of utilitarianism. Bentham would have counted all happiness equally, regardless of degree. Mill introduced the notion of higher and lower pleasures, introducing degree into the equation. The fourth one is a play on Robert Nozick's notion of a "utility monster," which is a sadist who experiences so much pleasure that it outweighs the suffering he causes. He really didn't like utilitarianism, as an anti-government minarchist guy. Anyway, speaking of Robert Nozick, let's throw in a libertarian trolley problem. mmm I think Mill's philosophy was within reason so I don't think that applies to the situation described above. I also believe that his philosophy was happiness without pain, which also doesn't apply to our situation above. Nozick's experience machine was a major critic of utilitarianism so I don't think it's fair to use it in junction with utilitarianism and for the question posed above. It's a twisted philosophy anyways. I'd pull the lever and plead good samaritan law :D |
|
iluvtofu said: Freshell said: Depends on the form of utilitarianism. Bentham would have counted all happiness equally, regardless of degree. Mill introduced the notion of higher and lower pleasures, introducing degree into the equation. The fourth one is a play on Robert Nozick's notion of a "utility monster," which is a sadist who experiences so much pleasure that it outweighs the suffering he causes. He really didn't like utilitarianism, as an anti-government minarchist guy. Anyway, speaking of Robert Nozick, let's throw in a libertarian trolley problem. mmm I think Mill's philosophy was within reason so I don't think that applies to the situation described above. He had a fairly specified range of what constitutes higher and lower pleasures, I agree. Pleasures of the mind are higher than pleasures of the body, for example. His philosophy doesn't make it particularly easy to introduce utility monsters. Though I do think once you allow for degrees of pleasure to be introduced into your hedonistic calculus, you have to allow for the hypothetical situation in which a weird alien or something experiences far more elation than us. But no, this isn't a practical problem for utilitarians since utility monsters don't actually exist. :P The experience machine is a far better criticism. |
Freshell said: @Orhunaa Guess I'm going to have to look into David Benatar's stuff because that's precisely the kind of argument for anti-natalism that makes 0 sense to me. Michael doesn't like ice cream. Micheal likes to kill. All work and no play makes Michael a dull boy. Do you really want to make Michael miserable? But I mean you can sort of feel what he's I'm going for right? (Edit: Oops made a mistake this is me brainstorming applying his ideas not his approach let's not misrepresent) I don't wanna make Michael a miserable boy, but where's the justification that not granting someone a particular pleasure without it being supplemented by pain is an example of ethical failure? For instance if you compliment someone they'll feel good and you make someone's day slightly better maybe but if you don't then that's not an immoral act. That's kinda the intuition behind it. I think it's not compatible with pure utilitarianism, but I don't consider myself as such. |
Auron_Jan 18, 2020 12:58 PM
|
Orhunaa said: Freshell said: @Orhunaa Guess I'm going to have to look into David Benatar's stuff because that's precisely the kind of argument for anti-natalism that makes 0 sense to me. Michael doesn't like ice cream. Micheal likes to kill. All work and no play makes Michael a dull boy. Do you really want to make Michael miserable? But I mean you can sort of feel what he's I'm going for right? (Edit: Oops made a mistake this is me brainstorming applying his ideas not his approach let's not misrepresent) I don't wanna make Michael a miserable boy, but where's the justification that not granting someone a particular pleasure without it being supplemented by pain is an example of ethical failure? For instance if you compliment someone they'll feel good and you make someone's day slightly better maybe but if you don't then that's not an immoral act. That's kinda the intuition behind it. I think it's not compatible with pure utilitarianism, but I don't consider myself as such. Oh my. I was under the impression you were. ;P Tbf, the meme did assume utilitarianism. I don't think you need to introduce new notions to utilitarianism to handle situations like whether we should greet a particular person, though. Not everyone will care that they got greeted. Some will even find it a hassle. So how do you demarcate between these people on a practical level? I guess you could greet everyone you run into, but then you're wasting time you could have used to study to learn a skill that's useful to society, or you're wasting time you could have used to benefit society more directly by going to work. So I don't see why utilitarianism would require you to greet someone as a rule. |
Freshell said: Orhunaa said: But I mean you can sort of feel what he's I'm going for right? (Edit: Oops made a mistake this is me brainstorming applying his ideas not his approach let's not misrepresent) I don't wanna make Michael a miserable boy, but where's the justification that not granting someone a particular pleasure without it being supplemented by pain is an example of ethical failure? For instance if you compliment someone they'll feel good and you make someone's day slightly better maybe but if you don't then that's not an immoral act. That's kinda the intuition behind it. I think it's not compatible with pure utilitarianism, but I don't consider myself as such. Oh my. I was under the impression you were. ;P Tbf, the meme did assume utilitarianism. I don't think you need to introduce new notions to utilitarianism to handle situations like whether we should greet a particular person, though. Not everyone will care that they got greeted. Some will even find it a hassle. So how do you demarcate between these people on a practical level? I guess you could greet everyone you run into, but then you're wasting time you could have used to study to learn a skill that's useful to society, or you're wasting time you could have used to benefit society more directly by going to work. So I don't see why utilitarianism would require you to greet someone as a rule. Oh, sorry for not being clear. I don't wanna say anything definite, there's always so many things to read and be more informed about. Currently I'm not convinced that it's absolute, but see great value in it. But applying reductio ad absurdum on that, nothing we do is moral because all of the time could be spent more effectively going to places with enormous amounts of human suffering and helping there, effectively rendering us unthinkably unethical. But okay you could change it to giving away money, and it retains the same relevant factors. Unless you bring up the super rich, that diverges too much with the debate around how much of the money are actually theirs. |
|
Orhunaa said: Freshell said: Oh my. I was under the impression you were. ;P Tbf, the meme did assume utilitarianism. I don't think you need to introduce new notions to utilitarianism to handle situations like whether we should greet a particular person, though. Not everyone will care that they got greeted. Some will even find it a hassle. So how do you demarcate between these people on a practical level? I guess you could greet everyone you run into, but then you're wasting time you could have used to study to learn a skill that's useful to society, or you're wasting time you could have used to benefit society more directly by going to work. So I don't see why utilitarianism would require you to greet someone as a rule. Oh, sorry for not being clear. I don't wanna say anything definite, there's always so many things to read and be more informed about. Currently I'm not convinced that it's absolute, but see great value in it. But applying reductio ad absurdum on that, nothing we do is moral because all of the time could be spent more effectively going to places with enormous amounts of human suffering and helping there, effectively rendering us unthinkably unethical. But okay you could change it to giving away money, and it retains the same relevant factors. Unless you bring up the super rich, that diverges too much with the debate around how much of the money are actually theirs. Fair enough! It's a good attitude to have. I likewise use the framework at times, but I have multiple values that I balance. Just because we can't distinguish the best action doesn't mean we can't distinguish better actions from less good actions. Erasing the distinction would be an instance of the continuum fallacy. The major utilitarian theorists all agree that utility maximization is just a benchmark, not a decision procedure you have to undergo any time you do anything. There's benefit in having people pursue selfish ends in the marketplace. If there's only expensive phones on the market, profit motive leads someone to innovate and create cheaper phones to get people to buy their cheaper product. We also have taxation as a balance to pay for social necessities and tax credits to incentivize people to donate. Feel like there's a balance every nation tries to strike and utilitarians can easily justify it. |
Freshell said: Orhunaa said: Oh, sorry for not being clear. I don't wanna say anything definite, there's always so many things to read and be more informed about. Currently I'm not convinced that it's absolute, but see great value in it. But applying reductio ad absurdum on that, nothing we do is moral because all of the time could be spent more effectively going to places with enormous amounts of human suffering and helping there, effectively rendering us unthinkably unethical. But okay you could change it to giving away money, and it retains the same relevant factors. Unless you bring up the super rich, that diverges too much with the debate around how much of the money are actually theirs. Fair enough! It's a good attitude to have. I likewise use the framework at times, but I have multiple values that I balance. Just because we can't distinguish the best action doesn't mean we can't distinguish better actions from less good actions. Erasing the distinction would be an instance of the continuum fallacy. The major utilitarian theorists all agree that utility maximization is just a benchmark, not a decision procedure you have to undergo any time you do anything. There's benefit in having people pursue selfish ends in the marketplace. If there's only expensive phones on the market, profit motive leads someone to innovate and create cheaper phones to get people to buy their cheaper product. We also have taxation as a balance to pay for social necessities and tax credits to incentivize people to donate. Feel like there's a balance every nation tries to strike and utilitarians can easily justify it. Freshell said: Orhunaa said: Oh, sorry for not being clear. I don't wanna say anything definite, there's always so many things to read and be more informed about. Currently I'm not convinced that it's absolute, but see great value in it. But applying reductio ad absurdum on that, nothing we do is moral because all of the time could be spent more effectively going to places with enormous amounts of human suffering and helping there, effectively rendering us unthinkably unethical. But okay you could change it to giving away money, and it retains the same relevant factors. Unless you bring up the super rich, that diverges too much with the debate around how much of the money are actually theirs. Fair enough! It's a good attitude to have. I likewise use the framework at times, but I have multiple values that I balance. Just because we can't distinguish the best action doesn't mean we can't distinguish better actions from less good actions. Erasing the distinction would be an instance of the continuum fallacy. The major utilitarian theorists all agree that utility maximization is just a benchmark, not a decision procedure you have to undergo any time you do anything. There's benefit in having people pursue selfish ends in the marketplace. If there's only expensive phones on the market, profit motive leads someone to innovate and create cheaper phones to get people to buy their cheaper product. We also have taxation as a balance to pay for social necessities and tax credits to incentivize people to donate. Feel like there's a balance every nation tries to strike and utilitarians can easily justify it. My intention is not to erase that distinction. I'm not comparing us to the theoretical best but simply assert that it's increadibly easy to think of the better that makes our actions relatively bad. Off the top of my head taking part in free clinics, or funding them, or opening them up are some of the "better goods." I was thinking of it on an individual scale though. Come on, you know economics isn't my forte :D But yes your sayings are correct, but I feel it's going kinda off-track. |
|
Orhunaa said: Freshell said: Fair enough! It's a good attitude to have. I likewise use the framework at times, but I have multiple values that I balance. Just because we can't distinguish the best action doesn't mean we can't distinguish better actions from less good actions. Erasing the distinction would be an instance of the continuum fallacy. The major utilitarian theorists all agree that utility maximization is just a benchmark, not a decision procedure you have to undergo any time you do anything. There's benefit in having people pursue selfish ends in the marketplace. If there's only expensive phones on the market, profit motive leads someone to innovate and create cheaper phones to get people to buy their cheaper product. We also have taxation as a balance to pay for social necessities and tax credits to incentivize people to donate. Feel like there's a balance every nation tries to strike and utilitarians can easily justify it. Freshell said: Fair enough! It's a good attitude to have. I likewise use the framework at times, but I have multiple values that I balance. Just because we can't distinguish the best action doesn't mean we can't distinguish better actions from less good actions. Erasing the distinction would be an instance of the continuum fallacy. The major utilitarian theorists all agree that utility maximization is just a benchmark, not a decision procedure you have to undergo any time you do anything. There's benefit in having people pursue selfish ends in the marketplace. If there's only expensive phones on the market, profit motive leads someone to innovate and create cheaper phones to get people to buy their cheaper product. We also have taxation as a balance to pay for social necessities and tax credits to incentivize people to donate. Feel like there's a balance every nation tries to strike and utilitarians can easily justify it. My intention is not to erase that distinction. I'm not comparing us to the theoretical best but simply assert that it's increadibly easy to think of the better that makes our actions relatively bad. Off the top of my head taking part in free clinics, or funding them, or opening them up are some of the "better goods." I was thinking of it on an individual scale though. Come on, you know economics isn't my forte :D But yes your sayings are correct, but I feel it's going kinda off-track. Fair enough. I suppose classical utilitarians might run into some problems there and conclude they should give away their disposable income to such a hospital clinic. Though does this asymmetry idea save someone from that? Hospitals help people by removing pain. If his asymmetry doesn't apply in a situation such as that as to make someone morally obligated to donate regardless, it seems like it's an idea with so little teeth that it only really applies to the very specific situation considered by anti-natalists. You're far more likely to be saved by an idea that takes into consideration what would happen if everyone was expected to act in accordance with some rule. What I'm saying is, let Michael kill them, Aura. You know you want to. Doesn't his smile look cute? |
| something like that. The route could have curves for a better experience, and instead of a train a truck is better, a little bigger. The fun would end because the life of the truck is not infinite so if you had the option of infinite vehicles it would be nice. |
Freshell said: Orhunaa said: My intention is not to erase that distinction. I'm not comparing us to the theoretical best but simply assert that it's increadibly easy to think of the better that makes our actions relatively bad. Off the top of my head taking part in free clinics, or funding them, or opening them up are some of the "better goods." I was thinking of it on an individual scale though. Come on, you know economics isn't my forte :D But yes your sayings are correct, but I feel it's going kinda off-track. Fair enough. I suppose classical utilitarians might run into some problems there and conclude they should give away their disposable income to such a hospital clinic. Though does this asymmetry idea save someone from that? Hospitals help people by removing pain. If his asymmetry doesn't apply in a situation such as that as to make someone morally obligated to donate regardless, it seems like it's an idea with so little teeth that it only really applies to the very specific situation considered by anti-natalists. You're far more likely to be saved by an idea that takes into consideration what would happen if everyone was expected to act in accordance with some rule. What I'm saying is, let Michael kill them, Aura. You know you want to. Doesn't his smile look cute? Thus effective altruism is born. I believe many of them are utilitarians. Yes it does not. But it's already questionable whether we need to be saved from that to begin with. We may have degrees of separation but the happenings are no less real if it was on our doorsteps, things like the abject poverty, lack of access to clean water, heating etc. There have been significant improvements on those though, so yes there's something being done right. I know he's a cutie but I can't make exceptions, if I let him, tomorrow it'll be @Luchse. And we all know that's not a good idea. |
|
Orhunaa said: Freshell said: Fair enough. I suppose classical utilitarians might run into some problems there and conclude they should give away their disposable income to such a hospital clinic. Though does this asymmetry idea save someone from that? Hospitals help people by removing pain. If his asymmetry doesn't apply in a situation such as that as to make someone morally obligated to donate regardless, it seems like it's an idea with so little teeth that it only really applies to the very specific situation considered by anti-natalists. You're far more likely to be saved by an idea that takes into consideration what would happen if everyone was expected to act in accordance with some rule. What I'm saying is, let Michael kill them, Aura. You know you want to. Doesn't his smile look cute? Thus effective altruism is born. I believe many of them are utilitarians. Yes it does not. But it's already questionable whether we need to be saved from that to begin with. We may have degrees of separation but the happenings are no less real if it was on our doorsteps, things like the abject poverty, lack of access to clean water, heating etc. There have been significant improvements on those though, so yes there's something being done right. I know he's a cutie but I can't make exceptions, if I let him, tomorrow it'll be @Luchse. And we all know that's not a good idea. But now we fall into the problem of the trolley again! Let's suppose not allowing Michael to kill these 5 gives him withdrawals, and that these withdrawals cause him unbearable suffering. Must we allow Michael to kill so that he doesn't suffer such a fate? Let us be good altruists and allow him to subtract an immense pain. Luckily, he isn't a utility monster. No one is as cute as a utility monster. |
I watched enough of Jigsaw movies. IDK if gory videos violates the rule 7 of MAL, so I'll just stick to more trolley problems. |
''Enemies' gifts are no gifts and do no good.'' |
| Jump over the one guy, come back and jump the other five guys. Two times epicness. To the real one not the meme ones, I always go with not pulling the lever. |
 Leading biologist Scott Pitnick said: The bigger your 'nads, the smaller your brains |
| I would keep pulling the trigger up and down that way the train may fall of the way so even if they're people in the train there is a high possibility they wouldn't die since it's a train. |
The word elitist is stupid since it's just used by people who can't defend their favorite shows and use it on people who criticize their favorite shows.  |
| Keyword: Trolley (Tranvia) You'll find tranvia in cities. Cities are full of people. Being in a place full of people, these guys somehow tied up on the rails will desperately scream for help more than enough for others to get their attention. Seeing Michael is on the lever wanting to kill these people and now a mob of people on their way to the scene, one group will need to rush in to beat the shit out of him for being a cold-hearted son of a bitch, but admittedly, it would be better if someone is just gonna knock him out and laud them afterwards to say they could have a future in UFC if they managed to put him down in 30 seconds. The rest will go to the people who are tied on the rails to free them. With Michael out who fortunately is a fucking imbecile, and no one else but myself to set course of action in this situation, I will pull the lever to divert the tranvia towards the 1000-mile track, because I don't know who the hell thought of the idea of stretching the rails that far, unless this is actually located in Japan in the Taiheiyo Belt starting with Hiroshima for a long-ass scenery tour along the Japanese Alps which would really make sense. This decision has saved us a lot of time from pressure. Now, we'd need a car considering no one is there to save that one person assuming he's been there for a while and has probably shat their own pants now—and Michael apparently rode the Shinkansen to do that feat of tying those people that many without others noticing for his own pleasure of watching them brutally die, which for an imbecile like him is terrifyingly impressive. Then, we'll get someone who can drift to drive us to the mountainous terrains of Japan, because we need to be quick to get there, so we can give them a spare pants or shorts to save them from further embarrassment already and they can confide to us to keep it as a secret how they've been soiled for probably 13 hours now before we arrived. Even if this guaranteed there'll be no person killed in this life-threatening situation, it's quite unfortunate they went through this traumatic experience. And with this solution, the trolley problem has been solved. You just gotta think outside of the box. It's that easy, man. |
 |
Who the fuck posts a trolley dilemma without the Pinochet helicopter variable. |
 |
I redirect the trolley towards OP having it run him over instead. |
GreenClock said: I would keep pulling the trigger up and down that way the train may fall of the way so even if they're people in the train there is a high possibility they wouldn't die since it's a train. you made me think of this variation:  |
| Questions like are very tricky. On the surface, pulling the lever is the obvious choice, but pulling it without consulting the people who’ll be sacrificed for the greater good is basically you playing god and deciding who lives and who dies without even giving them a choice in the matter. It may be unfair, but at the end of day I’ll go with the choice that leads to a lesser amount of people dying. |
| To judge others by your own standard is the height of folly. |
sorry to bump lol but just saw this the other day |
More topics from this board
Poll: » What is a bigger issue ( 1 2 )Commit_Crime - Nov 5 |
94 |
by DX_impulse
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» How long have you been single?EmiliaHoarfrost - Nov 6 |
26 |
by Dumb
»»
11 minutes ago |
|
» What will you do if Donald Trump wins? ( 1 2 3 4 )Yumadu-nii - Mar 9, 2016 |
156 |
by traed
»»
25 minutes ago |
|
» What's so cool about 4chan?hime_Ichigo - 6 hours ago |
13 |
by Dumb
»»
34 minutes ago |
|
» Did You Ever Sit Down Too Fast And Accidentally Sit On Your Own Balls?vasipi4946 - Yesterday |
10 |
by Zarutaku
»»
1 hour ago |